To report performance for the whole of the operating year 2006-07 against the Annual Operating Plan 2006-07, together with corporate risks.  The report also covers the full set of Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs) and the progress being made against the Council’s Overall Improvement Programme.

The Committee considered performance for the whole of the operating year 2006-07 against the Annual Operating Plan 2006-07, together with corporate risks. 

The report also covered the full set of Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs) and the progress being made against the Council’s Overall Improvement Programme.

The report to Cabinet on 7 June 2007 was appended to the report.

The Head of Policy and Performance presented the report.  He circulated a chart showing the Council’s scores under the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) in 2005 and 2006 and the target scores which had been set for 2009.  He said that the Council was not yet performing well enough nor could it demonstrate a pattern of continuous improvement.  The target scores for 2009 were designed to ensure that the Authority obtained a three star rating and was ranked as a Good authority under the CPA framework.

In response to a question he confirmed that the Authority’s CPA rating, was currently 3*.  However, this could be seen a  ‘protected’ position.  The Authority had been one of the first to be assessed under the CPA “harder test” regime in 2005 and has been rated 2* overall. Under the Audit Commission’s rules, it was entitled, like all the other authorities whose scores had dropped, to retain the higher rating attained under the 2002 CPA, until every authority had been assessed under the ‘harder test’. At that stage the Authority would have to have improved or drop to a 2* rating when all assessments were reconciled and new consistent ratings published.  Results of authorities under the “harder test” to date showed a mixed pattern with both improvements and reductions in ratings.

The Director of Corporate and Customer Services noted that the assessment regime was to change again to become a Comprehensive Area Assessment.  This would be a broader assessment of both the Council and its partners.  The new assessment framework would also place an emphasis on the public’s perception of performance.

Turning to the Integrated Performance Report the Head of Policy and Performance reported that of the full set of strategic performance indicators 33 were identified in the red category (not achieved or, where no end of year outturn had been reported, latest data indicated that the target would not be achieved). 

Of the Best Value Performance Indicators, 62% were improving and 27% deteriorating. 

The Government Office for the West Midlands (GOWM) had also confirmed that the Minister had decided that the GOWM-led improvement board for Children and Young People would continue to oversee the Council’s progress for the next six months.

The Head of Policy and Performance also highlighted the importance of performance against the indicators included in the Local Public Service Agreement (LPSA2G) and the Local Area Agreement (LAA).  He added that although performance had generally improved against the LPSAG2 targets 11 of 31 indicators were in the red category because the annual target had not been achieved.  In come cases whilst there had still been improvement this had been insufficient to achieve the stretched target set under the Agreement.

In the ensuing discussion the following principal points were made:

·         It was asked whether the targets HCS 33-35, aimed at reducing the days of schooling missed, were in effect about reducing truancy.  It was noted that a recent police exercise in North Herefordshire had identified some 80 truants. 

The Committee was informed that there may be additional factors affecting performance against these indicators, in particular in the case of HCS 35 relating to looked after children.  However, truancy was the main reason.  The Education Welfare Service was seeking to improve the position.  One issue was the need to improve the speed with which schools notified the Council of absences, to enable prompt action to be taken.  It was concluded that this issue might merit further consideration as part of a work programme.

·         The Committee noted that the Commission for Social Care Inspection had published the results of its inspection of the Council’s services for adults with learning disabilities and that an action plan had been prepared in response.

·         Performance against the LPSAG2 and LAA was questioned.  It was asked why in the LPSAG2 11 indicators were now marked red compared to 5 at the end of January 2007 and why in the LAA 29 indicators were now marked red compared to 8 at the end of January.

The Head of Policy and Performance said that this area of performance merited detailed consideration.  Some of the LPSA targets could only be recorded at the year end.  Whilst progress had appeared to be satisfactory the outcome had not been as expected.  However, the LPSA was a three year programme the end of the second year of which had now been reached.  It was considered that some targets were recoverable – for example those relating to days of schooling missed.  However, it had to be recognised that target HC 45 relating to reducing the number of violent crimes may not be achieved.  Work was planned to look at policing and the actions of the Council and its other partners with a bearing on this target.  It was noted that the future requirement under the Police and Justice Act for the Council’s scrutiny function to scrutinise Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships would be relevant.  It was concluded that this issue too would merit consideration as part of the work programme.

·         Regarding target HCS 15 (number of emergency unscheduled hospital day beds occupied by a person aged 75 and over) the Committee noted that the Government had issued a new definition of the target criteria.  Discussions were continuing with GOWM about resetting the LPSA target to allow account to be taken of this change. 

·         In relation to the LAA the Head of Policy and Performance advised that to an extent the number of targets marked red at the year end might be expected to increase as what appeared satisfactory activity during the year ultimately failed to achieve the target.  He added that it was difficult to identify a particular problem area of service, some had under-performed, others had improved but had not reached the target set.  There were issues to address across the range of indicators.

·         The Director of Corporate and Customer Services commented on the importance of securing the performance reward grant available under the LPSAG2.  Action was being taken to establish the reasons why progress was not being made as expected and to consider whether reallocating resources would help to achieve the targets.

·         On behalf of the Cabinet it was stated that the importance of achieving the targets and securing the performance reward grant attached to the LPSAG2 was recognised.  The targets were, however, ones which the Council should be seeking to achieve irrespective of the associated grant.  The Executive would negotiate with GOWM where GOWM changed the definitions of targets.  The Committee’s challenging approach to performance in this area was welcomed.

RESOLVED: 

That    (a)        performance for 2006-07 and the Best Value Performance Indicators be noted;

                        and

            (b)       consideration be given to requesting further detailed information on areas of concern identified above as part of developing future work programmes, in particular the overall approach to delivering targets in the Local Public Service Agreement and the Local Area Agreement.